Local Candidates

03/20/2013

We have written on this race before where you kind find the bigger picture details, so we will not cover those here. It is entertaining watching fire board candidiate, Cole McNary try to have his cake and eat it too, meaning taking the union money while claiming to be the candidate of fiscal prudence. He actually claims to be unaware of their support while Mary Shapiro, a seasoned professional with the Suburban Journals, schrewdly points out
that Steve Swyers, the man McNary claims he will model, is one of the two union endorsed sitting members of the board. Like McNary, Swyers claimed to be a Republican, independent of the union all through his campaign, but Shapiro has officially ended the charade by calling him out. The question now is whether voters will reject the dishonest campaigns of RINOs claiming to be independent of the union or if the six figure woolen eye covering campaigns will lull them into confusion.

24thState has always been about unraveling tangled webs woven by politicans seeking power. For taking the union dough, and opposing the reform faction, Monarch Concerned Taxpayers, McNary deserves to be rebuked by voters a second time. His opponent, Jane Cunningham is not without controversy of her own, but to our knowledge screwing taxpayers is not one of them. McNary is eating the union cheese now so he has chosen his banner even if he will not be honest about it. Monarch Concerned Taxpayers is the rallying organization for taxpayers and the union is the rallying point for well, the union members. Voters, you do the math.

01/24/2013

It has long been the goal of 24tState to be an independent source of breaking news and information with a special focus on equipping voters with specific tactics to act civicly in their own best interest which we can do because we are insiders. Key among these interests is the local fire district elections. The latest occurrence in a crucial race is something we have never seen before but one that is likely a harbinger of things to come.

See the following from an email blast by a taxpayer group in the Monarch Fire District reporting that voters in these normally low key races will see two prominent Republican names square off. All taxpayers need to pay attention to this because there is a simple logic behind the madness.

Yesterday
the Monarch Fire Board race went from a four-way contest to a
conventional race between two opponents. Current Union Director Kim
Evans and recent Union recruit Russell Lake both withdrew from this
election, leaving only Union Candidate Cole McNary and Independent Jane
Cunningham. We believe the Union strategy shifted when Rick Gans
withdrew from this race last week and was replaced with the popular
Cunningham. Gans tells us he is not surprised by Evans' withdrawal as
he was shocked she even filed given her record of tax increases and
support of billing residents for ambulance service. Apparently Lake, a
protégé of Union Director Swyers, decided he was not ready to do battle
in this election.

Now
that the final candidates are clearly known, Cunningham's task will be
to make sure that voters know they are choosing between her opponent,
who will serve the Union as Evans so ably did for six years, and her,
with her well-established record of being the voice of the taxpayers.
We will watch as McNary tries to use his credentials as a former
Republican office holder and his father's well recognized name to make
it appear he will be the choice of conservative voters. The "new"
McNary received Union support last year in his failed Treasurer's race
and he has already surprisingly declared to several that the Union is
supporting him in this race.

We will be updating the website with this development in the next 24 hours.﻿

The reason Jane Cunningham is running instead of Rick Gans is that defeat of any union fire district candidate requires hurculearn effort. The union firefighters have every reason to "invest" in campaign cash and
time in order to elect the people that determine whether they work less
for more or work even less for even more. The taxpayer candidate has to raise funds from friends and family. The typically Monarch candidate will spend $20,000 to the union's $100,000. For taxpayers to look to a seasoned politician with a broad donor base is a shrewd move. Gans, a businessman, made a very selfless act by stepping aside. One can only imagine the pressure placed on Evans to step down from her $1000 per month pay and generous health insurance benefits.

Here is the inside baseball. The other reason firfighters all over St. Louis spend so much on Monarch races is that the union in every other district can point to Monarch as a justification to request more pay. "We do not need to make as much as Monarch, but be close, otherwise we risk losing our best firefighters to them". That is the argument. The typical Monarch firefighter receives well over $100k in compensation
and benefits in exchange for spending eight 24hr shifts doing that
unique job.

Here is another insight into the sad, but dirty politics. Cole McNary is running to join Steve Swyers and Robyn Harris now that Evans stepped aside. Thanks to the tireless work of the watchdog group Monarch Concerned Taxpayers, everyone knows that Swyers' consistent votes in concert with Evans and against Harris reveal that he was lying to voters when he promised to be the taxpayers' candidate, denying he was allied with his son's fellow union firefighters. While "low information voters" fell pray to the machine behind first time candiidate Swyers, the taxpayers paying attention knew that Gans was their guy, clearly on the side of taxpayers.

The taxpayers again, have their "guy" in Jane Cunningham. Now that the union candidate Evans is gone, the union clearly is behind McNary. McNary is now faced with a bigger challenge than Swyers in convincing voters he is independent of the union. Will he really try to tell voters that the union is sitting this one out, content to allow the taxpayers to enjoy a 2:1 majority with Swyers being their only loyalist? Will McNary's former Chesterfield constituents naively retain their trust for the guy who represented them for six years and be shocked when he joins the cagey Swyers and votes with the union? This is going to be a very hard sell for McNary and the union, but they probably have $100k to spend several times over. Taxpayers can only hope that Cunningham can bring her own significant connections and resources to bear as the banner carrier for taxpayers and that voters will see through efforts by McNary to steal that banner.

10/30/2012

“I’ve spend a very good part of my life trying to build the Republican Party
and I’m proud of that party and I think it has a very responsible role
to play, especially in today’s world, particularly in an age of Obama and I
think Todd Akin damages the Republican brand and I think he hurts the party in
the minds of many people,” Jack Danforth, Former US Senator.

Full disclosure:

24thState took no position in the Republican Primary for U.S. Senate and for
that matter, we took no position in the Democrat Primary either. We discussed the
Primary in one piece, but were as stunned as most Missourians at his miraculous
victory.

The Motto, "Show Me State" honors the common sense of Missouri
voters who are
not crowd followers, but people famous for judicious independence. So when
the political world demanded we fire our guy, there were many local calls to do
just that, but in time we calmed down collectively and settled in for an adult
discussion. What really matters has a measure to do with control of the Senate,
but everything to do with control of our republic. While we lost control of our
country, our work created for us, a pivotal opportunity to gain it back.

Who took our Republic?

The Consultants. Americans are fed up with both parties and they have no
idea why. While both parties
have radically different platforms, the outcomes
when one or the other controls differs far less. Bush 43 does TARP, Obama does
"Stimulus". Bush thrills Big Pharma and Big Insurance with Medicare
Part D, Obama does Obamacare and solar giveaways. The result is that the
country is broke and a record high number of people are declaring independence
from both parties. Is either party making a play to bring them in? Nope.

Both
parties are corrupted by this, winning only when they are more skilled at
convincing independents that the other party or the other guy from the other
party is worse. Consider the abject failure that is Barack Obama. That a single
literate American finds him worth voting for is testament to this. The entire
Obama campaign is built on why women and "brown people" should fear
Romney. Where is the ad saying, "Look at all the good I have done, don't
you want more?" The best the occupant of the White House can say is
"Give me a second chance."

For his part, Romney is not promising anything great. His best appeal is
that nothing could be worse than Obama. This is not genius political analysis,
this is what 90% of Americans will admit over a beer. Put the average Tea
Partier together with the average Occupier and one of the first things they
would agree about is how terrible their own party is. The problem that both
suffer and few can quantify is that both parties are controlled, utterly owned
by consultants equally guilty of doing the bidding of a horrifyingly small
group of people.

Who corrupted the parties?

Yes, the left has Soros and the right has the Koch Brothers. Both have a
party structure in which Karl Rove and David Axelrod and a host of A- minus
list consultants just below them get paid to foist their desires on the
American people by wielding power over all of us with an iron fist. How?

Let's
take Todd Akin for an example. Akin was a freshman Congressman in January of
2001 when Karl
Rove was in the White House as the top "Advisor" and
"Architect" of the Bush Presidency. As the big A..., Rove pressed
Akin to vote for the aforementioned TARP, Medicare Part D, and a host of other
un-American proposals that fly in the face of what our Founding Fathers
expected the federal government to do. Mostly Akin went along, but on those
bills and others, he told Rove "No".

True power means, no one tells you "no".

When you are in the majority party, you are expected by the Rove's of the
world to subject yourself to his authority 100% of the time. Make no mistake,
precisely like the college fraternity choice that almost every freshman has to
make, every freshman politician must declare his or her tribe or no tribe at
all. The choice brings certain benefits and handicaps. The universal truth is
that if you want to rise in party leadership, or just drink at the party well,
you must choose the party fraternity, eschewing all others for your tribe. Karl
Rove is not the president of the fraternity or even the social chairman, he is
the Sergeant At Arms, doling out favors, introductions to the elite major
donors, and even reelection cash, or withholding all, from those who are not in
the Fraternity. The Democrats are no different. Sadly, whether Rove or Axelrod
is the Architect in the White House, they are agents for several of the same
biggest donors?

So if you like Karl Rove, and his opinion matters to you, then do you like
TARP, Medicare Part D, and massive deficits? You cannot separate these policies
from Rove. He was the architect of them, pushing the Akins of the world to back
them and then swearing to their political death when they withheld support.

Americans are so clueless about this game it is pathetic. Karl Rove, the
Architect turned "Enforcer" never supported Akin yet with great drama
he announces his withdrawal of support from Akin, support Akin never had in 11
years of being a "fellow" Republican, and the nation sheepishly takes
the bait. The story line drafted by the A is that "Akin is too
extreme." That works every time.

So what is extreme?

Ask yourself that question. Look at Akin's voting record compared to say,
Jack Danforth's. Take any ranking on limited government and fidelity to the
Constitution and Akin will win hands down. Let's start with giving the
Panamanians the right to sell the Panama Canal to China. Do the same with the
venerable Jim Talent or Roy Blunt. Take the rankings of groups who share your
views and see who ranks higher. I dare you. "You have seen the enemy and
he is you."

Akin happens to be a man who possesses what is among the most impeccable
standard of personal integrity of any man to occupy a Congressional seat. He is
so honest he is almost incapable of scandal. His kids are even perfect,
homeschooled, accomplished, with three graduating from the Naval Academy. Most
importantly, he is a man who has sworn allegiance to the American People's
Fraternity, choosing his constituents over the Party Tribe.

Akin is a man who told Rove "No."

So all Missourians have a choice. We can talk about Akin in contrast to
McCaskill who is in the Obama Fraternity and whose entire fortune was amassed
off of government programs, who sticks taxpayers with the bills for her
personal jet trips, but the issue is so much simpler than that.

The question for all Americans, even the Occupiers, is whether you are ready
to take up your birthright as Americans and elect men and women, even of the
opposite party, for the simple reason that they chose you over the Party
tribes. Are you voting for Rove and Axelrod or are you voting for yourself?

Most importantly, Akin is a candidate of our making. Without the Tea Party
independent movement, Akin might never have won his primary and would have had
far less confidence to cobble together the critical mass of independent
constituencies to win despite Rove. So you, the party independents created the
Akin opportunity.

Finally, for those of you with that most odd propensity to put principal one
notch behind the bandwagon desire to go with a winner, consider that Todd Akin
has won two truly miraculous races including this primary. We at 24thState gave
him zero chance. Yet he won. He has not lost an election since he first took
office in 1992. His campaign style may be somewhat unorthodox, and it is no
less so now.

The Akin campaign has taken on huge national appeal, with Rove, Axelrod and
their allied Danforths and other elites choosing McCaskill and people from the
American People tribe flooding into Missouri from all over the country for
Akin. This week, Dr. Gina Loudon
makes her second trip starting today, from her current home in San Diego to
support Akin. She joins a list that includes Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bay Buchannan
and more. Most of all, Akin has an unblemished record of winning, he also has
the "praying people". The Akin victory would create the first chink
in the Rove-Axelrod armor.

10/15/2012

The St. Louis Police Department currently has an open process when a police officer is charged with malfeasance, a crime or a department violation leading to discipline over 15 days. A NO vote on Prop A, November 6th will continue that open process.

A yes vote will end transparency and deprive the media the ability to report to the citizens about St. Louis Police Board hearings. At this time the Police Board Trials are open to the public and the citizens have the right to follow the trials of accused officers. An open hearing protects the officer and the public from discipline meted out for political purposes.

Under the proposed legislation discipline will be determined by the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission is appointed by Mayor Slay and their ruling is closed to the public with only naming the officer if found guilty. The circumstances of the trial are closed to the public. This system of authority may be suitable for employees of the forestry division and for phantom employees of the Treasurer’s Office, but is not appropriate for the Police Department.

The end result was a major factor in the St. Louis Police Officer’s Association change in stance from being against local control to supporting Prop A. This about face by the Police Officer’s Association on local control has also aided union boss Jeff Roorda’s campaign for a Missouri Legislative house seat. Rex money, Nancy Rice, Bob Holden, Charley Dooley and Mayor Slay rewarded Jeff Roorda with a fundraiser by agreeing to local control and denying the police and the citizens the transparency of public hearings.

08/08/2012

Missouri primary election night was full of surprises. A few observations:

Congressman Clay showed Rusty Carnahan that his name was enough to carpet bag his way into a South St. Louis Congressional seat, but the North Side remains Clay Country.

Thousands of well-intentioned Tea Partiers learned that the best intentioned candidate cannot defeat the unwritten rules of politics and a Harvard lawyer with the right ideas and wrong bank account just cannot make a serious run for the top political job in the state.

Perhaps most surprisingly, Missourians learned that no political rule can withstand God's rule when Todd Akin is on the ballot.

On primary election day, August 2000, in the race for the 2nd Congressional seat vacated by then Congressman Jim Talent, state house member Todd Akin was running for Congress against a far better funded former county executive with nearly 100% name identification, a slightly better funded state senator with solid name identification (both slightly to his left politically), Talent's long-time grassroots coordinator and another conservative competing for Todd's base. County Executive Gene McNary was heavily favored. When the dust settled, Akin shocked the establishment winning with 52 votes.

The stunner of the primary in August 2012 is perhaps actually quite simple. Conventional wisdom held many marks against Akin.

1. He is from St. Louis, that is never good.

2. He had a second candidate competing for St. Louis votes.

3. He had in Steelman, a seasoned Missouri campaigner with a record of winning statewide.

4. Two men against one woman, two St. Louisans against one rural candidate...

5. Akin was dismissed by the establishment as "too conservative" and dismissed by many, most-notably conservative kingmaker, Senator Jim Demint as too liberal.

What did Akin have? In a word, God.

While plenty of Christians have waded into politics, few can match the Congressman's record of Christian devotion, clean living and even clean campaigning of Todd Akin. Akin even teaches classes on the Biblical heritage and legacy of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Certainly it is fooolish for anyone to claim to know God's plan in specific developments in the affairs of men, but those also doubting that the Lord has a hand in His world do so at their own peril. As long as Congressman Akin is on the ballot and on his knees, smart political money would remember the primaries of 2000 and 2012.

Missouri Republican Voters, sent a powerful message

Akin ran a hard race, a clean race, and a determined race, and to their credit, Missouri Republican voters rewarded Akin with a convincing victory. The Republican consultants who were so quick to violate Reagan's 11th Commandment and advise their candidates to attack Akin early and below the belt should take note of what the Republican body politic communicated and should maybe take to their knees before takng a bat to another Republicans again.

The big races lie ahead.This country is in great peril and the least transparent, most-viciously campaigning, hardest left radical who ever "occupied" the White House needs to go. Many good patriots are tempted by powerful axioms like "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil". That is all fine and good until election day, but there are many more ways to express one's opinion than burning one's bra, draft card or ballot. Shirking one's responsibility to remove a man who would tax us all and force our kids to fund abortions for irresponsible "occupiers" is an endorsement of evil. The axiom for all patriots that is true now more than ever comes from William F. Buckley, Jr. "Always support the rightward most viable candidate". Always.

08/05/2012

In Republican primaries, and certainly Democratic ones as well, endorsements really do matter. The average voter looks at websites and mail pieces, talks to friends, notices yard signs and other indicators suggesting that each guy is just great. These approaches can leave the impression that either candidate is worth supporting. The discerning patriot can usually shortcut all of this by simply looking at what the patriotic organizations are saying about the candidates and ignore the half truths candidates sling at their opponenets.

One of the most reliable Missouri organizations for conservative endorsements is the Concerned Women for America. This scandal free, volunteer organization group has had pro-family lobbyists in the building for decades, and they know who the trustworthy stalwart politicians are. The Eagle Forum is great as well, but their occasional early endorsements of more established candidates like Senator Blunt over State Senator Chuck Purgason, suggest a cautionary note. If you want to know who to trust on life, it is Missouri Right to Life, guns, Gun Owners of American and the 2nd Amendment Coalition first and the NRA a close 2nd. Other groups like Missouri Club For Growth can occasionally get it wrong, but are right far more often than wrong. So if one candidate were to have the endorsement of all of those groups and the other none, the patriot's decision should be easy.

Sadly, the Missouri Capitol is full of candidates who were not endorsed by those groups. One Missouri state senator won a primary against a candidate who enjoyed almost all of the endorsements including the CWA, MRL and the NRA, in other words, deemed better on family, life and gun issues by credible third parties. Why? Fuzzing.

Fuzz - To make or become indistinc; blur

In consultant land, when your candidate is weaker on the issues that matter to voters, rather than getting into the intellectually honest battle about which issues are more important and who is better on them, you attempt to create doubt in the voters. Not the pro-life candidate? Send out a pro-life mailer anyway. Not the pro-gun candidate? Send a pro-gun piece. The silver bullet tactic however, is to find one issue, even a completely fabricated issue and create confusion with voters as to whether they can trust the other guy on anything. An example of this is the attack by State Senate Candidate Scott Largent on Conservative darling Ed Emery.

Ed Emery is the conservative with all of the requisite endorsements, from Missouri Right to Life, Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, the Club for Growth among many others. Largent's endorsements are almost exclusively a few of his buddies from the State House that he reports on his website and others like labor unions that he does want to share with the conservative voters he is trying to sell. More importantly, Emery has considerably more money. The combination of the staggering conservative credentials and a bigger bank account is usually a one-two punch that lays out the toughest candidate. Enter the sucker punch.

Hitting Below the Belt

So Representative Largent, possessiong no key group endorsements and several endorsements like union firefighters, who call him their "favorite" and union teachers he wishes people were not aware of. He has less money and he is losing. It is time to spread confusion with "fuzz". Largent sent the piece shown here to voters in which he proclaims his conservative credentials and then takes a half-truth, turns it into a100% fabricated issue and puts it in print in order to confuse voters. The tactic relies on the good will of Republican voters who tend to be so trusting that they cannot imagine a Republican candidate would just lie.

The loathesome attack attempts to convince voters that Ed Emery is so enamored with President Obama that he will be his tool in Jefferson City. Of course, Largent is telling a lie, but doing so using a half-truth. Largent examines a single amendment, on a single Emery vote, out of thousands over his career, this one involving a non-binding "resolution", basically a political statement regarding Obamacare. In it, the extremely analytical and independent-minded Ed Emery voted opposite from his republican colleagues believing the amendment (to the non-binding resolution) would actually do more harm than good to the political debate. Largent uses the half-truth-Emery did take a unique position-to tell a huge lie that Emery somehow supports Obamacare and spins it into an even bigger lie, suggesting that Emery is actually in the pocket of Obama himself! Has Largent no shame?

While the half-truth is so damnable, Largent and his consultants hope that a certain amount of the busy and trusting voters will be confused by it and that the clarity of Emery's being the true conservative will become fuzzy in their minds. Largent cannot prove that he is the true conservative no matter how much money he spends because it is not true. What he can do however, is spend his donors' money telling lies about Ed Emery in order to fuzz the truth that Emery is the conservative. That is what Largent has chosen to do. People wonder why we have a Capitol full of Republicans and legislative output that smells of RINO dung.

As they say, we do not get the government we want, we get the government we deserve. Missouri is a state blessed with volunteers who spend year after year studying candidates and rating them. Yet at election time, too many ignore those ratings. We will have a hard-hitting piece on ratings and what they mean, but for now, here is some fuzz for you, and we cannot make this up. Conservative voters in the 31st District who may be "fuzzed" into confusion about whether Ed Emery, the endorsed conservative is a better candidate than Scott Largent may be interested to know that Largent has a uniquely close relationship with a liberal Democrat lesbian from St. Louis who boasted about this relationship in a black-owned City of St. Louis newspaper. Enjoy!

07/26/2012

With the primary elections coming down to the finish, 24thState is going to increase a focus on helping the patriotic, freedom-loving voter to see through the typical campaign garbage in order to properly discern what really matters when selecting candidates. One of the first problems to face every candidate is whether to "go negative". The favorite solution is usually to find a third party to do the hitting while the candidate gets to stay positive, and appear to be the boy scout in the race. This allows the candidate to have his cake and eat it, too. So how do we judge political speech from third parties?

Today, we kick off the series of primers for patriotic voters with a classic campaign tactic, the Fake Campaign Committee. In the race for Missouri's 31st state senate seat, Ed Emery has been hit by a shadow campaign committee hoping to block Ed to the benefit of his opponent, Scott Largent. For his part, Scott Largent began running a clean campaign, but decided to take the gloves off late. While there is certainly a degree of honor to a campaign doing its own hitting, the move also belies a losing campaing.

So whose version of the facts are voters getting from Noranda Aluminum of New Madrid, Mo, the outfit behind the attack on Ed Emery? More importantly, would Ed Emery actually support anything at all that is bad for Missourians? Ed Emery's nature is as solid as it gets, so if someone is casting doubt on Ed it says a lot more about them. Ed cannot hurt Missouri even if he wanted to because being in any way dishonorable is not in his nature.

On the other hand, Noranda is the largest electricity consumer in the state and does have every right to engage the political process. They also enjoy the lowest electric rates of any customer in the state. Residential rates are 8.96 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 3.77 cents for Noranda. Could it be that Noranda means to say that Ed Emery is open to raising their rates if it is for the long term good of all Missourians? Big companies do not suffer independence (which they see as defection) very well.

Curiously, in the question of nature, Noranda hates Ed Emery, but loves former Speaker turned Village People turned Green Balloons Rod Jetton who they hired as their lead lobbyist. That the once rising star, Rod Jetton had dishonored himself politically by first sneaking, then denying, then defending his role in passing the most treacherous anti-local control measure ever at the behest of his wealthiest donor, and followed that up with an affair, divorce and bizzarre sexual dust up, and was now toxic in Jefferson City did not bother Noranda. They thought he was perfect material to be their face in the Capitol.

Over the coming week, we will feature more axioms including endorsements, a great tool for measuring Congressional candidates, Reagan's 11th Commandment and the Senate race, consultant wars and more. But remember, while this memorable scene validates the notion of a higher power, and God is in control, he calls his people to be wise as serpents and gentle as doves, that means that the patriotic voter first has a duty to be wise. We at 24thState are here to help.

06/11/2012

The reasons to replace Jax Nixon as Governor are numerous and valid, starting with his lockstep allegiance to public sector unions and opposition to the right to work, but those discussions are best held for another day. What is noteworthy in this cycle is that rather than the typical lineup of Republican politician versus Democrat politician, Congressman Lieutenant Governor or Auditor of one party versus Governor of the other, in this cycle, Missourians have tremendous and unusual options, any of whom hold the potential to be stellar leaders in stark contrast to the dearth of leadership from the play-it-safe Nixon.

While Dave Spence, the tremendously successful businessman has all of the trappings of the official GOP establishment choice, that is a bit unfair. Spence is a true leader in his own right, who was called to service and answered that call. That makes him a patriot. He has solid credentials as a conservative and certainly as a businessman and has shown courage that is rare even for a businessman in Missouri. Spence actually had the cajones to stand in front of the status quo loving, shrinking violets at the RCGA and repeat the need to revisit the right to work reform in Missouri. You go man! What he lacks, is typical for business leaders turned politicians and that is the sophisticated political accumen. The political world is not the business world and neither is government. Government has totally different accounting standards and diplomacy in politics is very distinct from business negotiations. Your competitor in business is rarely the strategic partner the next day the way a Senator from the opposing party may be in politics. Can a guy like Spence who had an unremarkable first half of his life and a stunning second half have built the accumen to skillfully navigate these waters? Maybe. He certainly has surrounded himself with some great people, like Bill Rowe, a friend of mine from grade school, who will help.

The next candidate gaining attention is Bill Randles. I struggle with this guy, and I may lose friends who adore him, but here is why I urge caution. Politics almost never rewards shortcuts. The first tier candidate for any party is always a proven commodity. You are proven in politics first, otherwise, and far less often, an outsider can make a run for high office and be credible only if there is some other celebrity status and/or significant personal wealth. Total outsiders devoid of a public record or name identification (name ID), and no way to fund the creation of significant name ID never win. Never. In fact, the record of failure is so clear, that those who have devoted themselves to politics, from grassroots volunteers to lower level office holders find it almost egomaniacle when someone thinks they have the "juice" when they have no juice. To ask volunteers to dedicate themselves to ones Quixotic quest demeans them and boarders on the audatious. On the other hand, Bill Randles has a Harvard Law degree. That says a lot about someone's capabilities, but not nearly enough for him to shortcut the process. Randles would be very credible running for State House or even perhaps Senate, but not the state's top job.

The candidate getting the least attention deserves the most, and that is Fred Sauer. For the sake of full disclosure, I once worked for Fred. That experience also gives me particular authority regarding the subject matter.

Fred Sauer is a complex man possessing perhaps the finest combination of personal character and personal accomplishment of anyone I have ever known. I have known some great people notably, the late Jerry Wamser about whom I wote a few weeks ago. Missourians wanting to hitch their wagon to this man's train would be extremely well-served.

I do not impress easy, but when you spend a few moments with the guy, the thought occurs that you are in the company of a truly gifted, maybe even superior human being. While Randles went to Harvard law school and certainly did fine legal work thereafter and Spence went to state school and created a stunning business, Fred Sauer did all of the above and more. Fred not only went to Yale and then Stanford, he then proceeded to build tremendous personal wealth, demonstrated a nearly unparallelled willingness to devote that wealth to the selfless promotion of causes he feels called to support and finally, devoted decades toiling in the grassroots of the party structure (as a committeeman) never seeking the personal glory of running for office. In short, rather than shortcut, Fred Sauer has quietly done every one of the very things we ask of our candidate and far, far more. Plus, unlike Randles, Sauer has the ability to self-fund. That makes him every bit as "first tier" as Spence.

If there is one criticism of Fred it is that he is naive'. That is a misunderstanding. Fred Sauer takes very seriously, the biblical mandate that we comport ourselves wise as serpents and gentle as doves. He is both extremely wise and certainly learned, but this American hero who enlisted during Vietnam, is as gentle as a dove holding no personal malice for any man. He will however, deploy tremendous force and personal resources against actions he loathes, but never against people. He is trusting, almost to a fault. Were the race for Governor a cage fight in which the combatants were judged on demonstrably solid character, principles, and selfless dedication, Fred Sauer would be Royce Gracie, and leave the best comers in his wake. Like the famed Brazilian jui jitsu artist who at less than 200lbs stunned the mixed martial arts world by defeating the biggest meanest opponents in a time before they even had weight classes, Fred Sauer quietly, humbly and strategically gets the job done vanquishing any task or opponent with grace. In the Governor's race this August, Republicans have two great choices and one stellar choice. The stellar choice is Fred Sauer.

07/22/2011

If I still lived in the 2nd, Ed would be my guy. As full disclosure, I did send him some money for his campaign in the 3rd district (where I also used to live) in 2010, ensuring I get his mangled mail merge comeons addressing them to "Theresa" instead of "Brian." I sent him some this time around, too.